If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, which stops mergers it believes will push up prices, signaled Thursday he was willing to consider tougher enforcement, a move that could affect high profile big tech companies but also energy producers, drug makers and a big swath of the U.S. economy.

Joseph Simons, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to head the FTC in October 2017 and began work in May, noted in a brief speech that during two previous stints at the FTC, most recently as head of the Bureau of Competition, there had been a tendency to take a relatively hands off approach to antitrust enforcement.

“But now at the beginning of my third stint at the commission, things have shifted. The broad antitrust consensus that has existed within the antitrust community in a relatively stable form for about 25 years is being challenged,” he said at a conference organized by the FTC.

“First, some recent economic literature concludes that the U.S. economy has grown more concentrated and less competitive over the last 20 to 30 years, which happens to correlate with the timing of a change to a less enforcement-minded antitrust policy, beginning in the 1980s,” he said. “These concerns merit serious attention.”

Simons also noted calls for antitrust to address issues of income inequality and lagging wages, and said that this would also be discussed.

“We do this with the goal of understanding if our current enforcement policies are on the right track or on the wrong track, and if they are on the wrong track, what shall we do to improve them?” he said, noting that he was keeping “a very open mind.”

Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat on the five-member commission, noted in a tweet a Roosevelt Institute study showing relatively few big companies dominate markets ranging from airlines to pharmaceuticals, saying “@FTC is listening.”

......

Bullshit. If any antitrust action is taken it will be against Amazon, Google and Facebook. Not against anyone else. All of Trump's and GOP's antitrust talk is just a way to silence media they cant fully control. Even after Google and Facebook let Russians and Cambridge Analytica "play" and help Trump win.

While resigned to President Donald Trump firing the attorney general after the midterm elections, they suspect that perhaps only a sitting senator could win confirmation as Sessions’ successor — that is, someone they could trust not to interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But no one from their ranks seems to want the job.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said any new nominee must pledge to protect the Mueller investigation, and that it would help if that person were “somebody from the body or someone who has had experience … or somebody you know personally, you know what you’re getting.” But he said it’s not going to be him, despite private belief among his colleagues he’s eyeing the job.

“No. I like being a senator. There are plenty of more qualified people than me. Bunches of them, thousands,” Graham said Wednesday.

Asked about Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, a fellow Senate lawyer who was considered as FBI director, Graham said: “He’d be great if he wanted to do it.”

No dice, said Cornyn.

“We already have an attorney general,” said Cornyn, who some colleagues think could be confirmed to succeed Sessions. “I love my job.”

And Mike Lee (R-Utah), who some Republicans think might be interested in the job, is “very happy” in his current role as senator, a spokesman said.

With few obvious potential applicants for a job that seems to come with built-in clashes with the president, some senators even suggest Trump might have to nominate a Democrat to have any hope of getting a new attorney general confirmed.

“Trump may very well want a change,” said retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “If I was the president, I’d even consider picking a Democrat if I thought I couldn’t get anybody else through.”

Kamala Harris did a good job as AG in Cali.

I dunno. It always seemed to me that she was always reacting to events and bandwaggoning on causes once the political winds were clear. I don’t recall her ever taking a hard stance that wasn’t popular with the electorate and politically prudent.

She’s not a dummy, though.

I don't understand the problem? At least she's responsive to voter concerns.

From what I read she has taken a harder stance with financial abuses like mortgage fraud. It seems most other prosecutors are totally indifferent to white collar crime these days

Yeah, she was pretty tough on white collar crime, and abusive landlords in SF.

Uhhhhh did you guys miss the bit where she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and his bank for their role in the 2008 scam?

People silently kneeling for the flag != people calling for race war, ethnic cleansing, vilifying the press as the “enemy of the people” etc.

Translation: Speech I find unpopular should be banned. Speech I like should not.

Fair enough, I wouldn't equate the general offensiveness of two either, personally.

But my question was not about the speech itself, it's about giving Corporations a ticket to ban speech in the modern public square of the interwebs and social media platforms as they, not society, deems appropriate.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

While resigned to President Donald Trump firing the attorney general after the midterm elections, they suspect that perhaps only a sitting senator could win confirmation as Sessions’ successor — that is, someone they could trust not to interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But no one from their ranks seems to want the job.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said any new nominee must pledge to protect the Mueller investigation, and that it would help if that person were “somebody from the body or someone who has had experience … or somebody you know personally, you know what you’re getting.” But he said it’s not going to be him, despite private belief among his colleagues he’s eyeing the job.

“No. I like being a senator. There are plenty of more qualified people than me. Bunches of them, thousands,” Graham said Wednesday.

Asked about Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, a fellow Senate lawyer who was considered as FBI director, Graham said: “He’d be great if he wanted to do it.”

No dice, said Cornyn.

“We already have an attorney general,” said Cornyn, who some colleagues think could be confirmed to succeed Sessions. “I love my job.”

And Mike Lee (R-Utah), who some Republicans think might be interested in the job, is “very happy” in his current role as senator, a spokesman said.

With few obvious potential applicants for a job that seems to come with built-in clashes with the president, some senators even suggest Trump might have to nominate a Democrat to have any hope of getting a new attorney general confirmed.

“Trump may very well want a change,” said retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “If I was the president, I’d even consider picking a Democrat if I thought I couldn’t get anybody else through.”

Kamala Harris did a good job as AG in Cali.

I dunno. It always seemed to me that she was always reacting to events and bandwaggoning on causes once the political winds were clear. I don’t recall her ever taking a hard stance that wasn’t popular with the electorate and politically prudent.

She’s not a dummy, though.

I don't understand the problem? At least she's responsive to voter concerns.

From what I read she has taken a harder stance with financial abuses like mortgage fraud. It seems most other prosecutors are totally indifferent to white collar crime these days

Yeah, she was pretty tough on white collar crime, and abusive landlords in SF.

Uhhhhh did you guys miss the bit where she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and his bank for their role in the 2008 scam?

No. As I said in two other posts, it’s the biggest mark in her record. That said, the office did prosecute more white collar crime under her leadership.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.

Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.

And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.

Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.

And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.

This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.

Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.

And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.

This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?

I keep seeing this restaurant analogy, but a better analogy would be that of a company buying out the town square and only allowing people who say things they agree with the right to demonstrate there. And when people complain about it, they get told to go to another town square if they have a problem.

Either the Bill of Rights needs to be applied to speech on social media, or new laws need to be drafted to address it. But companies enforcing arbitrary policies regarding free speech, removing content they don't want without any explanation, banning people without any kind of hearings, is not a just system in any way.

Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?

They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.

Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.

And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.

This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?

I keep seeing this restaurant analogy, but a better analogy would be that of a company buying out the town square and only allowing people who say things they agree with the right to demonstrate there. And when people complain about it, they get told to go to another town square if they have a problem.

Either the Bill of Rights needs to be applied to speech on social media, or new laws need to be drafted to address it. But companies enforcing arbitrary policies regarding free speech, removing content they don't want without any explanation, banning people without any kind of hearings, is not a just system in any way.

No one bought the town square. They built a restaurant where you are on the menu.